Russia defended, this Sunday (7), the new national security strategy of the United States, based on the nationalist approach of American President Donald Trump, and declared that it was “broadly consistent” with Moscow’s worldview.
“The adjustments that we have observed, I would say, are generally in line with our vision,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in an interview with state television Rossia, referring to the document released Friday.
Peskov said he hoped the new US strategy “could provide a modest guarantee of the ability to constructively continue joint work to find a peaceful solution in Ukraine.”
The document released on Friday (5) by the Trump administration redefines the country’s national security strategy. The text speaks of “the disappearance of European civilization” and defends the fight against “mass migrations” and the restoration of “the domination of the United States in Latin America.”
He also declares that NATO, the military alliance led by Washington, will not be expanded, contrary to the hopes of the Ukrainian government of Volodymir Zelensky, which is trying to negotiate a peace so far dictated by Moscow’s conditions.
The new American strategy was particularly poorly viewed by Washington’s European allies. Since his return to the White House, and even before winning the 2024 elections, Trump has not hidden his contempt for European leaders and his criticism of what he considers to be insufficient spending on the continent’s defense, according to Trump depending on the United States.
Fearing permanent loss of their ally, European leaders, however, hesitate to openly criticize the American.
In a publication on
“We have common enemies. At least it has been this way for 80 years. We must stick to this, it is the only reasonable strategy for our common security. Unless something has changed,” Tusk wrote.
European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said on Saturday that the United States remained the bloc’s main ally.
Reflecting the change in tone and priorities from Washington, the number two at the State Department, Christopher Landau, criticized the United States’ European allies.
“Either the great nations of Europe are our partners in protecting the Western civilization we have inherited, or they are not. But we cannot pretend to be partners as long as these nations allow the unelected, undemocratic, unrepresentative EU bureaucracy in Brussels to pursue policies of civilizational suicide,” Landau wrote in X.
This Saturday (6), Russia carried out a new mega-attack with drones and missiles against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, in several regions of the country. There were power outages and blackouts in several of them, at a critical time as winter approached.
The action came as Trump administration envoys negotiate a solution to the conflict with Moscow, while Ukrainian envoys visit the United States. But so far, no deal is on the horizon.
The White House document further emphasizes that “after years of neglect,” the United States will act “to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere and to protect the homeland and access to important geographic areas in the region.”
He also championed a revival of the Monroe Doctrine of the early 19th century, an American strategy aimed at replacing European influence in the Americas with Washington’s hegemony over other countries on the continent, notably those in Latin America – a region considered by the United States to be its backyard.
At the time, however, the doctrine was more bravado than an actionable measure: In 1823, when President James Monroe formulated the strategy, the United States did not have a navy capable of standing up to major European powers, such as the United Kingdom and France.
Two hundred years later, the scenario is different. In what it calls applying a “Trump corollary” to the doctrine, the US government should, according to the text, seek access to the region’s resources and strategic locations, in addition to ensuring that countries are “reasonably stable and well-governed to prevent and deter mass migration.”
Along the same lines, without mentioning specific countries, the document supports a readjustment of the US “global military presence”, with the aim of combating what it calls “urgent threats” and “moving away from scenarios whose relative importance to US national security has diminished in recent decades or years.”
About The Author
